Secret courts

The 'secret Court' in this case was a Family Court where civil proceedings are held in private in order to protect the identities of the children involved. It seems to have involved a very acrimonious dispute between parents over the residence of the children, resulting in a 'gagging order' to prevent either parent naming the children publicly. This is not unusual, but it is not clear why the Order did not end when the child reached 18 which would normally be the case. I would not like to comment on this without knowing the full facts - it was either an error on the part of the judge or he/ she had sound reasons for extending it.

The Daily Mail seems to be running a campaign to expose the 'scandal' of secret courts. I'm not sure there is any scandal. Family Courts, Youth Courts, and the Court of Protection quite rightly limit public access and are subject to reporting restrictions in order to protect their more vulnerable clients. That does not mean they are not subject to the same legal process as any other court.

A secret court means that justice is not seen to be done and that can lead to abuse with Social Service's department often accused of giving misleading and uncorroborated evidence.

I am sure that the vast majority of cases in the Family Division are properly conducted and are fair to all, but in a public court if a judge gives a perverse decision - and they do - over or under sentencing for example, then public opinion often means that the case is reviewed by a higher court and the sentence either supported or changed as appropriate.

Family courts, because they are not public, can conceal these perverse judgements and the person affected has very few rights of appeal and are hampered by not being allowed to make the case public.

To my mind it is far better to keep the press and public as far out of family or children's proceedings as possible. There are probably very good reasons for this and good reasons why we do not know what has gone on.

Children's identities really need to be protected at all costs.
Hard evidence in child welfare case is hard to get if its not straight forward injuries. Judging emotional and physical neglect can be much harder to quantify.

I have worked with men/offenders who have been ordered by a court not to contact their child directly or indirectly, because of the risk they contine to present to the child. Some children, when they have reached 18, have been helped to obtain injunctions.

It's all very well for the Daily Mail to take up the cause of someone who has 'only' wished his son a Happy Birthday on Facebook, but for many in such a situation, this behaviour rides rough-shod over the needs and safety of that child or young adult.

How intimidating for this young man, to receive a message that tells him 'you are still within my reach and my power if I choose to contact you despite being legally prevented.' This order wasn't imposed on a whim. Men who have posed a threat to their children, and use subtle ways to tell them they can get at them, can strike terror with such behaviour without anyone else understanding the harm they are perpetrating.

Well said when. The safety of the children is more important than the feelings of the adult.

Couldn't agree more When. I do wish the gutter press would keep their sensationalist noses out of matters they neither understand nor care about. From my years as a WA Worker, I could quote hundreds of instances of 'on the surface' innocuous or even kind gestures which were designed to frighten or intimidate. You would not believe the vast amount of cards and flowers that would be delivered to the local refuge or our office on a Valentine's Day - each offering designed to say 'I know where you are'. Thankfully, they were usually wrong - the target families were 'elsewhere' or often not known to us at all.

I couldn't agree more with these comments in general terms, but in this case the young man in question was actually brought up by his father and published his view that his father had been treated unjustly. Which is why this particular case has hit the press and is slightly mystifying. I stand by my first post - we do not know the facts of this case but it is not representative of most such cases, where the 'gagging order' would end when the child reaches adulthood.

I fully agree children need to be protected in court proceedings but there are many court cases in other divisions of law where the identities of the parties involved, including children is hidden behind pseudonyms. I do not see why the same cannot apply in Family law cases.

It is all very well to say that secrecy is to protect the children, but what if the children are the victims of perverse decisions in the court? How does secrecy protect them?